Politicians have a love-hate relationship with the press. They cannot stand the sight of probing journalists who do not take no for an answer. Yet, they hardly miss a public event where they know the press is present and they ensure they take a front-row seat to be spotted in any press coverage there may be. You can hardly call politicians camera-shy. But are they? Evidently, it depends.
A few weeks ago, The Times contacted the Office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives requesting permission for a photographer and a cameraman to be present in Parliament for the vote on the second reading of the divorce Bill (taken last week). Speaker Michael Frendo, in turn, communicated the request to the House Business Committee.
When the Committee discussed the request last month, the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House, Tonio Borg, asked whether the request was to film the House before the vote took place or while MPs were actually voting. Labour Whip Joe Mizzi said he thought the request was to photograph MPs while voting, something he said he had no problem with.
Dr Frendo then made an astounding statement, insisting that, as Speaker, he had the duty to protect the right of MPs to vote according to their consciences. “I want no one to influence the vote. I think during the vote, the Chamber should be absolutely free. It’s true we have strangers in the gallery but it’s different when you have people taking photos. I fear it can be interpreted as an attempt to influence the vote on members and we must remain very cautious about this... the right to vote freely is sacrosanct,” he was quoted as saying.
That was astounding because barely two weeks earlier, during the official commemoration of the June 7, 1919 riots, it was Dr Frendo himself who spoke about “the agreement reached in principle within the Standing Committee on House Business in order to broadcast parliamentary sessions by live video streaming on the internet. The first step in this regard will consist in the broadcasting of Committee meetings, thus allowing greater direct communication to the citizen of the work carried out by the representatives”.
So, is one to assume that what is being proposed is that the public follow live video debates in Parliament and in committees but not witness through the same means the actual voting? Would it not be illogical for the people interested in a given topic before Parliament to painstakingly follow the debate but not see how they vote?
In the circumstances, one wonders what the Speaker has in mind when, on the one hand, he takes the opportunity of a public event to pledge live video streaming from Parliament but then reacts to a request for the presence of a photographer during a vote by expressing doubts that it could amount to influence.
This stand becomes even more difficult to comprehend in view of the fact that, throughout his political career, Dr Frendo has always been in the forefront of the fight for a free press.
Dr Borg told the Committee that when the British House of Commons allowed filming it laid a number of conditions which, he said, would need to be studied. Why not? The media certainly has no intention of putting any undue pressures on MPs at any stage of the parliamentary process. Its only aim is to ensure accountability. Surely MPs do not fear being photographed standing up to be counted.